Inertia Drive

[TinMan]

Dont see an !Inertia drive! section here,so will place it here until Peter can advise as to where it would be best suited to place this project.

Well here is the start of my Inertia drive project-the RFDD engine.

The plan is to use elliptical orbits of mass(in this project,i call them satellites)to off set the reaction force associated with all actions-Reaction Force Diversion Drive (RFDD).

If successful,this will be the only video posted,until the test video's are presented. If un successful,you will see all the build progress video's along the way. The project is expected to take 3 to 4 day's,so the next video will be posted around that time.

The plan if successfull.
After i have run various test on the device,and found that it works as planed,it will be time to choose one other person to replicate the device,run and report on there test finding's. The chosen person will be given the full build video's and instructions. This person must have access to a metal lathe,and a healthy budget for the project(around $200.00 for parts).

The plan if unsuccessful.
Dont do it this way again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGfDbmn5qaw&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w

[TinMan]

Just a video on the PWM for the RFDD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqmazCLQ9Lk&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w

[TinMan]

Dose AC (Allcanadian) not frequent this forum any more?.

Anyway,Chet posted my project over at EF-as i refuse to have any thing to do with that Arron peanut.
Here is what AC posted over there.
Quote: The first question I would ask is why, why will it work knowing momentum is conserved due to Inertia?. If we have no clear answer to this question then it is likely to fail before we have even started.
We should also understand the nature of the problem, imagine we are in outer space and we push on a bowling ball and the ball moves in one direction and we move in the opposite direction. The ball is not touching anything, it is not attached to anything it is just floating in free space and yet somehow it resists the force we have applied to it.

According to the laws of science what I have just described is impossible. An object cannot just produce a resisting force from nothing acting on nothing any more than an object can produce a propulsive force from nothing acting on nothing hence all the confusion. The rules have been skewed stating an inertial propulsive force is impossible despise the fact inertia in itself is equally impossible by the same rules. So we do have cause for optimism and as Tesla once stated ... it is a mechanical problem.

On the upside there is an easy solution to know when we are moving in the right direction. Buy a $10 Arduino Uno and a $5 3 axis gyro + accelerometer off Ebay then use the free software and processing on a laptop to graph all of the forces/motions in real time. I would hate to see anyone resort to using a bathroom scale because that is a clear indication they have no idea what their doing in my opinion.

I have the Arduino gyro/accelerometer setup and it works perfectly for a total investment of less than $20. If were going to build better machines then we need better tools to separate the wheat from the chaff.

AC

The first part we should look at is this comment-We should also understand the nature of the problem, imagine we are in outer space and we push on a bowling ball and the ball moves in one direction and we move in the opposite direction. The ball is not touching anything, it is not attached to anything it is just floating in free space and yet somehow it resists the force we have applied to it.

So who here knows how the space man(men) can push on the bowling ball and have it go in one direction,but not have the space man(men) go in the opposite direction?-without the use of rocket's and that sort of thing-just the space man (or men) them self. This is where force diversion comes into play.

The statement !every action has an equal and opposite reaction!-Who here would clearly like to state what that mean's?.

[TinMan]

A question for you all.

Most(if not all) here,will be of the opinion that an inertia drive that provides a uni directional thrust or force in one direction(or most there of),is not achievable-it would break the law of the conservation of energy.But could it just be a case that the law has been misunderstood.

So my question is this--> Who here can accurately explain this law
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
\
Give an example for each
1-What is the action?
2-What is the equal reaction?
3-what is the opposite reaction?

I want you to think very carefully about Q3.

[Smudge]

A question for you all.

Most(if not all) here,will be of the opinion that an inertia drive that provides a uni directional thrust or force in one direction(or most there of),is not achievable-it would break the law of the conservation of energy.But could it just be a case that the law has been misunderstood.

So my question is this--> Who here can accurately explain this law
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
\
Give an example for each
1-What is the action?
2-What is the equal reaction?
3-what is the opposite reaction?

I want you to think very carefully about Q3.

It's not so much about conservation of energy but conservation of (linear) momentum.  In the electrical world we have conservation of charge (and in the magnetic world conservation of flux) in addition to energy considerations.  Same goes for the mechanical world.

You can get electrodynamic inertia from the earth's electric charge and also from the earth's magnetism.  If you use that to break conservation of linear momentum, when you consider the whole thing you find that the reaction is on the earth, so you are driving the earth in the other direction.  Overall conservation of linear momentum is preserved.  So any system relying on mechanical inertia must create opposite reaction in whatever is responsible for our inertia, and that is distant matter.  So you need to transmit gravitational waves that will drive distant matter in the opposite direction (the transit time doesn't come into this).  And generating gravitational waves is not a trivial task.  However high speed rotation of mass has peculiar properties which could apply here, so don't give up.

Smudge

[TinMan]

Quote smudge:  So any system relying on mechanical inertia must create opposite reaction in whatever is responsible for our inertia

Lets look at my rough sketch below,and asume that it is opperating in space.With out the 4 balls in place,once the flywheel (if we want to call it that)is up to motor running speed,only the energy required to spin the motor is required-no extra energy is required to keep the flywheel running at a constant speed. Now we add the 4 1kg balls,but still no extra energy is required to keep the flywheel spinning at that constant speed-BUT we now have four 1kg balls exerting a force against the rim of the flywheel. So we have added force without increasing the primary force which created these 4 extra forces in the first place.

Now lets have a look at my even rougher second sketch. We now have an offset in the flywheel that carries these 4 balls that create these 4 extra forces.If we take a momentary snapshot of the rotating flywheel(as the sketch shows),we can see that balls 1 and 2 are following a smaller orbit than that of balls 3 and 4.So at this very instant(as depicted)we have an offset of force which would give us an inertial unidirectional force that flows in the direction from center of motor shaft,through the center of balls 3 and 4.Now what if it were possable to keep that elliptical orbit shape of the flywheel while it rotated,and used only the rotational power of the motor to keep the elliptical shape of the flywheel,so as an equal and opposite force was not required to pull balls 3 and 4 back into a smaller orbit like balls 1 and 2. So if we look at sketch two,and picture it rotating in the depicted elliptical orbit,we can see that we would have a greater force in one direction.

So how can this be done.Well as i stated above(first paragraph),4 extra large forces can be applied to a system that are at a 90* angle to that of the force that gives them creation(motor rotation).The very opposite can be used in that,we can add a force (load) to the motor and remove the 4 extra forces created by the 4 ball's.This is the force we use to increase and decrease the orbit path of the 4 balls,so as they follow the elliptical orbit path. Now i know you are going to ask-what stops the motor spinning insted of the orbiting balls. Well thats an easy fix. We simply have a second unit bolted ontop of the first unit,but this is a counter rotating unit,and all rotation by the motors is canceled out.The thing to remember here is,we only have to reduce that opposite force by 1%(or less) to achieve a net force in one direction.

[ion]

I have played with a few variations of eccentric drive devices over the years without much success, although your approach may have more merit than what I was doing.

I was very inspired along these lines at an early age. In the mid fifties there was an early morning TV news and variety show that featured various guests. One of the guests was a young inventor that demonstrated a clear plexiglass box. Inside the box were several hundred steel balls and a mechanism attached to an electric drill that thrust the balls in a given direction, hitting the inside top of the plexiglass box, then were somehow recycled into the thrusting mechanism.

The device made a horrible racket when started up, but did float up into the air. The demonstration did not last long as the racket was so loud the host quickly terminated the test as none of the dialogue could be heard.

Although very young (9 or 10), I was amazed by this and quickly realized that if it did work, it would revolutionize air travel once perfected.

In my teens, I played with gyros moving in and out of their plane of axial rotation while the assembly itself was rotated.

I have moved away from large mechanical devices, looking more towards manipulating atomic particle spins or ether flows as the answer.

Best of luck with your tests.

ION

[TinMan]

I have played with a few variations of eccentric drive devices over the years without much success, although your approach may have more merit than what I was doing.

I was very inspired along these lines at an early age. In the mid fifties there was an early morning TV news and variety show that featured various guests. One of the guests was a young inventor that demonstrated a clear plexiglass box. Inside the box were several hundred steel balls and a mechanism attached to an electric drill that thrust the balls in a given direction, hitting the inside top of the plexiglass box, then were somehow recycled into the thrusting mechanism.

The device made a horrible racket when started up, but did float up into the air. The demonstration did not last long as the racket was so loud the host quickly terminated the test as none of the dialogue could be heard.

Although very young (9 or 10), I was amazed by this and quickly realized that if it did work, it would revolutionize air travel once perfected.

In my teens, I played with gyros moving in and out of their plane of axial rotation while the assembly itself was rotated.

I have moved away from large mechanical devices, looking more towards manipulating atomic particle spins or ether flows as the answer.

Best of luck with your tests.

ION

Thanks for the input ION. That noisey device you describe sounds similar to how the shawyer's engine work's,only on a much larger scale-http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2570.msg40941;topicseen#msg40941
This was posted by Chet. I think it works on the principle of electrons hitting a surface,and giving thrust in that direction?.Sounds much like those little steel balls hitting the lid of that device you spoke of.

[TinMan]

Well ,it's taking a little longer that i had hoped,but so many other things to do while im on holidays. Just mowing the lawn can turn into a half day saga-when you have to repair the ruddy mower before you can actually mow the lawn;s. Mind you,the mower was running quite fine last time i switched it off,but the shaft conected to the governor decided it was time to get seized into the crank case-on flat out of course. Anyway,all fixed now,and lawns mowed., Here is just a short update video of the finnished shaft's for the project. Im hoping to have the bulk of it together today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZFusjLL3dg&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w

[TinMan]

Managed to get a bit more done today on the inertia drive project.Here is a small update video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63yJn9HuaWA&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w

[TinMan]

Well i ran the first test today on the RFDD-the pendulum test. The test was successful,although i was hoping for a little more deflection on the pointer. But as the sattllites are very small,and the device as a whole is very heavy,im happy with the result's. I have also decided to forgo the replication by another builder before showing how the device works,so you will also get a look inside the RFDD,and see it workings while running. This will all be in the video i will be posting tonight-as soon as it has uploaded. As per the norm here in WA this time of night,uploading is very slow-only 234 minute's remaining-then processing of course.

[TinMan]

Video finally up-enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-JF4a6qyDs

[Grumage]

Dear TinMan.

Sorry !!    Just couldn't resist !!

I hope you enjoy it ??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbJqmevU9s8

Cheers Grum.

[BEP]

Tinman,

Very interesting work!

At first, I thought the deflection was due to the center of gravity shift. The COG does shift.

Then I realized the deflection was opposite that which should be due to the COG shift 

I'm cornfused 

[TinMan]

Dear TinMan.

Sorry !!    Just couldn't resist !!

I hope you enjoy it ??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbJqmevU9s8

Cheers Grum.

lol-nice one grum.
Now,can you do the pendulum test please lol.


Cheers
Brad

[TinMan]

Tinman,

Very interesting work!

At first, I thought the deflection was due to the center of gravity shift. The COG does shift.

Then I realized the deflection was opposite that which should be due to the COG shift 

I'm cornfused 

I knew some one was going to say that it was due to the shift of the weights,but i didnt expect them to see that it was opposite to what the shift should have resulted in-good observation WW

[ion]

Regarding Grum's little car, I would be interested in how and from what direction the piston is supplied with air and in what direction it is expelled, as a little fan mounted atop the car would also produce movement.

If the air to the piston is supplied and expelled all in the same direction then the ultimate test is to eliminate the car and put the piston assembly inside a plastic sphere, hang it on a long cord from the ceiling and look for a deflection.

Ultimately I believe we need to learn how to effect an ether pump out of the atoms of the inertial body, however, an ether pump is perhaps just one way to do it, and  the mechanical models are valuable to get us moving in the right direction.

The riddle of inertia, and the "memory effect" of inertia may hold the key.

Good work guys.

[BEP]

I did some very similar work to Grum's little car.

What it boiled down to was there was no effect unless there was at least one direction of resistance (the table top).

I recall some work by NASA in the shuttle some decades ago using the same principles. They found no propulsion in a weightless environment. The gizmo just jerked back and forth unless it was fixed to a rotating lever.

Reminiscent of gyroscopes and precession.

However, Tinman's gizmo overcomes COG shift AND deflects the other way ??

[Grumage]

Dear ION and WaveWatcher.

Many thanks for the comments. The cylinder is fed air via a side port and is exited at the front of the Toy car. In other words in opposition to the direction it travelled !! I will insert a quote from the comments made about the video.

Quote.

M Thruster7 hours ago

This is the stick-slip phenomenon. Dynamic friction causes the device to do hundreds of mini jumps a minute, propelling it forward. While there's much to be desired from TinMan's experiment, there's a distinct lack of "stuff to push away from", which is the purpose of the pendulum.

Feel free to hang that thing from the ceiling and see if it moves.

Unquote.

Today, we hung a simple 12 V solenoid and plunger in a yoke driven by an RMC PWM and yes, you guessed, it rattled but no apparent swing.

Tests continue..........

Cheers Grum.

[Grumage]

Dear All.

Having slept awhile ! It dawned on me that my simple yoke assembly is proving Newton's 3rd law to a tee!

My solenoid is bashing each end alternately, net result, no movement .

I shall now try to engineer a solenoid that just hit's one end only!!

Outcome ?? 

Cheers Grum.

[BEP]

How can it hit one end without being pushed from the other or pulled from that end?

Unless you can create a suction in space-time I think Newton will still take the prize.

Don't think I don't want you to get that prize before Newton. He has won all too often 

[TinMan]

There are many ways to build what would seem like a reactionless drive in the boundaries of gravity and an atmosphere. But creating one which works in the vacuum of space is the challenge.

[Allcanadian]

I have always found most peoples understanding of Inertia very odd. That is the layman would tell me inertial propulsion is impossible because of the Conservation of Energy without knowing what energy or it's conservation actually is and they are simply parrots. Then the experts tell me it is due to the conservation of momentum and for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. That is inertial propulsion cannot work because something tangible cannot act against nothing because that would violate the laws of physics.

Now let's do a thought experiment, I am floating in outer space and I push on an object which has the same mass as I do. The conservation of momentum/energy states the action and reaction must be equal and opposite thus the object and I move away from each other with an equal velocity. My momentum (mass velocity) is equal to the objects momentum (mass velocity).

Here comes the tricky part, when I pushed on the object it resisted the applied force because of it's inertia just as my motion in the opposite direction was equally resisted because of my inertia. Now we know a force cannot act against nothing because this violates the laws of physics so how exactly did the object resist my applied force?. You see if I apply a force to the object and it resists this force then there must be a counter-force and low and behold there is nothing for the object to act upon which violates the laws of physics.

I understand the terminally misguided may say the counter-force was my inertia however the direction of force is incorrect and two wrongs do not make a right. Again I applied a force to the object and it resisted my applied force however it is impossible for the object to resist anything because it has nothing to act upon to produce a counter-force to my applied force.

Hence we see the delusion of inertia for what it truly is, if no mass can produce a motive force against nothing then by the same rules no mass can produce a resisting or counter-force against nothing... unless of course nobody actually understands the rules to begin with.

AC

[Smudge]

I have always found most peoples understanding of Inertia very odd.........

Hence we see the delusion of inertia for what it truly is, if no mass can produce a motive force against nothing then by the same rules no mass can produce a resisting or counter-force against nothing... unless of course nobody actually understands the rules to begin with.

AC

The problem is the way we are taught that inertia is some (internal) property of mass to resist a change of motion.  When clearly inertia is an external force acting on the mass, that external force being conjured up by acceleration through space.  Perhaps "conjured" is the wrong word to use since it implies some trickery, I could have said "summoned up".  So how can space apply a force?  Well the first thing to realize is that space is not empty, it is full of massless particles whizzing through at light speed.  And IMO it is the interaction of mass with those space particles that creates the force.  For how that might happen see my topic "Gyroscopic (Coreolis) forces and the Aether".

If that seems too far fetched then ponder on the fact that in electromagnetics we are familiar with external forces acting on things.  And some of those EM forces are inertia-like in that acceleration is involved.  Thus a positive charge within a region of space that is at some negative electric potential (due to some nearby negative charges) will exhibit an inertia effect, an acceleration will summon up a force opposing that acceleration.  So there we have inertia that is not an internal property of the body but is truly an external force.  The reaction to that force appears on those nearby negative charges which get forces from the radiated field.  So why can't mass behave in a similar fashion, why can't our space have some form of potential within which an accelerated mass receives a force that opposes that acceleration?

The answer is it can!!  That potential is a gravitational potential.  And it is not just the gravitational potential from the earth, that is tiny compared with the potential coming from all the other mass in the universe.  Because potential decays with distance according to a 1/R law, and mass is spread evenly throughout the universe when you consider mass density on a universal scale, it is a fact that mass at large distance contributes greater potential than mass nearby so we live within a huge gravitational potential coming from distant matter.  Now when we accelerate a mass within that potential we discover an external force that we call inertia.  We also radiate a gravitational wave and that will eventually apply force to all the other mass in the universe, so there is the reaction you are looking for.  Of course the wave is very weak, so much so that we can't measure it, but that does not mean it is not there.

Here endeth the first lesson.

Smudge

[Allcanadian]

@Smudge
You make some good points and I would agree it is inconceivable that Inertia is solely an internal property. In fact the known laws of physics and common sense dictate mass cannot act against nothing thus there must be  something filling all space we are unaware of.

I believe the real issue concerning inertia is that it is a constant and if we were to link it with gravity then we create more problems. First we would have to explain why inertia remains constant and gravity diminishes by the inverse square law. Then we have a problem with science which generally uses one undefined term such as (Gravity) to explain another undefined term (Inertia). Generally speaking when we link more terms which are in themselves undefined we do not gain any more understanding.

Knowing this I opted for a different route and solved the issue of what the primary fields are fundamentally first which then led to the understanding of secondary effects such as inertia. I tend to do things backwards and start at the most fundamental level then work my way out.

AC